This article is part of a comprehensive series covering the punitive articles of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Service members facing any UCMJ charge should consult a qualified military defense attorney.
Article 112a (10 U.S.C. § 912a) is the military’s most frequently prosecuted drug offense statute, and it casts a deliberately wide net. Any person subject to the UCMJ who wrongfully uses, possesses, manufactures, distributes, imports into the customs territory of the United States, exports from the United States, or introduces into an installation, vessel, vehicle, or aircraft used by or under the control of the armed forces a controlled substance is subject to punishment. That list of prohibited acts covers every point in the drug supply chain, from manufacture to personal use.
The article has been part of the UCMJ since 1984, when it was added in response to the military’s serious drug problem of the late 1970s and early 1980s. The MJA 2016 retained the article’s substance while renumbering other articles around it. Its staying power reflects a simple military reality: personnel who use, possess, or distribute drugs cannot be trusted with weapons, classified information, or the lives of the people next to them.
From Use to Import: What the Statute Covers
The MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 65) breaks Article 112a into seven distinct offense categories, each with its own elements and punishment ceiling.
Use
Wrongful use of a controlled substance. The most commonly charged variant. Urinalysis testing through the military’s drug testing program provides the evidentiary backbone. A confirmed positive urinalysis result creates a rebuttable presumption of wrongful use. The accused can challenge the result by attacking the chain of custody, the testing methodology, or by offering an innocent ingestion defense, but the prosecution starts with a strong evidentiary position.
Possession
Wrongful possession of a controlled substance. Possession can be actual (on the person) or constructive (in an area under the accused’s control, such as a barracks room, vehicle, or wall locker). Knowledge is an element: the accused must have known they possessed the substance, and must have known (or should have known) the substance was controlled.
Distribution
Wrongful distribution of a controlled substance. Distribution means delivery to the possession of another. It covers selling, sharing, giving away, or any other transfer of a controlled substance to another person. Distribution carries significantly higher maximum punishment than simple possession or use, reflecting the multiplier effect of spreading drugs through a military unit.
Manufacture
Wrongful manufacture of a controlled substance. This covers the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a drug or other substance. Growing marijuana plants in a barracks room or synthesizing methamphetamine qualifies. The offense is complete upon manufacture; actual distribution is not required.
Import/Export
Wrongful importation or exportation of controlled substances. This variant carries the highest maximum punishment tier within Article 112a, reflecting the severity of moving drugs across international borders, an act that implicates not just military discipline but national security and international relations.
Introduction onto military property
Wrongful introduction of a controlled substance into an installation, vessel, vehicle, or aircraft used by or under the control of the armed forces. This offense targets the act of bringing drugs into the military environment. A service member who purchases drugs off-installation and brings them back onto base has committed this offense, separate from and in addition to any possession charge.
The word “wrongfully” appears in every variant. It excludes authorized use: a service member taking prescribed medication according to a valid prescription has not “wrongfully” used a controlled substance. But the authorization defense is narrow. Using someone else’s prescription, exceeding prescribed dosage, or using a prescribed substance for non-medical purposes can all constitute wrongful use despite the existence of a prescription somewhere in the picture.
The Urinalysis Framework
The military’s random urinalysis program, established under DoD Directive 1010.01, provides the primary detection mechanism for Article 112a offenses. Unit commanders can order random testing, probable-cause testing, inspection testing, and consent-based testing. Each type has different legal requirements and different admissibility implications at court-martial.
Random testing results are admissible as evidence of wrongful use. The Military Rules of Evidence (MRE 312 and 313) govern the admissibility of urinalysis results, and the defense bar has developed a sophisticated body of practice around challenging testing procedures, chain of custody documentation, and laboratory methodology.
The “innocent ingestion” defense recognizes that trace amounts of controlled substances can enter a person’s system without deliberate use: secondhand marijuana smoke in a confined space, unknowing consumption of food products containing THC, or contaminated supplements. The defense must present evidence of a plausible innocent source. The prosecution then bears the burden of proving wrongful use beyond a reasonable doubt. In the era of widespread legal marijuana in civilian jurisdictions, passive exposure and cross-contamination arguments have become more common, though military courts have generally maintained skepticism toward these claims without specific, credible evidence.
Punishment and the Schedule-Based Framework
Maximum punishment varies by substance schedule and by offense type. Use or possession of marijuana carries lower maximums than use or possession of Schedule I or II substances like methamphetamine, cocaine, or heroin. Distribution maximums exceed personal-use maximums across all substance categories. Import/export carries the highest maximums.
For personal use of marijuana: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and two years’ confinement. For distribution of a Schedule I/II substance: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and fifteen years’ confinement. The spread between those two figures, two years to fifteen years, reflects the military’s proportionality judgment about the relative seriousness of personal use versus supply-chain participation.
Article 112a interacts with Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation) when specific unit or installation policies prohibit substances not yet on the federal controlled substances schedule, such as synthetic cannabinoids or designer drugs that appear faster than regulatory scheduling can keep pace. Article 134 (General Article) provides additional charging flexibility for drug-adjacent conduct that doesn’t fit neatly within Article 112a’s elements.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 112a is the UCMJ’s primary drug offense statute, covering seven prohibited acts from personal use to distribution and import. Maximum penalties range from two years’ confinement for marijuana use to fifteen years for distributing Schedule I or II substances.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. If you are facing charges under the UCMJ or need legal guidance regarding military justice matters, consult a qualified military defense attorney.